Sam Altman:

A lot of people want local inference, and somehow they assume that the problem is solved now because we have open-source models, we’re going to be able to run them on our computers, and so we’re not going to need all the stuff in the data center.

But from a global allocation perspective, actually it’s quite terrible to have everybody, like, have a bunch of the world’s limited supply of DRAM sitting in their own computer and being used five percent of the time.

Like you want maximum utilisation in the cloud if you’re trying to deal with this very supply-constrained environment,

And somehow many people’s intuition is the opposite of that

TL;DR Guy selling product: “Here’s why owning your own product instead of renting it from me is a terrible idea”

  • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    3 days ago

    letting sam altman (or billionaires for that matter) have all the money from our work is a poor allocation of resources.

  • melfie@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    234
    ·
    4 days ago

    McDonald’s can probably make hamburgers more efficiently than everyone can at home, but I’m not eating that shit any more than I’m giving Sam Altman my money or data.

    • TeaWithDani@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      McDonald’s does but its still more expensive than making hamburgers at home, why?

      Because profit motive is an inefficiency.

      Profit motive is also a misallocation of limited resources. Regular soup kitchens can feed hundreds of people at the cost of only a few dollars per portion. The only advantage they have is buying wholesale. Imagine spawning out of thin air a nonprofit with the vertical integration and logistics of McDonalds. How many people could it feed for next to nothing?

  • aramis87@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    174
    ·
    4 days ago

    Funny how there weren’t any systemic supply issues until someone decided to buy up all the RAM …

  • SparroHawc@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    3 days ago

    And who made those resources scarce, Sam? WHO MADE THEM SCARCE???

    also screw you for trying to make the answer to ‘How should those resources be allocated?’ be ‘In the way that best enriches me personally’.

      • joeshmoe@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        I think it has to be with the way all the media channels ( controlled by the rich in power) essential brainwash people into not acting. Money and capitalism slowly corrupted the process of democracy and will see after Nov 3 if there is away to hold the rich in check.

  • The Bard in Green@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    A lot of people want to be billionaires, and somehow they assume the problem is solved because we have unfettered predatory late stage capitalism and oligarchy in America, we’re going to be able to amass as much money as we want in our bank accounts, and so we’re all going to be rich without oversight, accountability or government interference.

    But from a global allocation perspective, actually it’s quite terrible to have everybody, like, have a bunch of the world’s wealth sitting in a few private bank accounts and being used .05% of the time.

    Like you want maximum circulation of currency if you’re trying to reduce inequality in this artificial scarcity environment,

    And somehow, Americans’ intuitions are the opposite of that.

    FTFY Sam.

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        Except that most of their “money” is parts of the company, it “works”. It only gets dangerous, if the economy is bad and people keep their (real) money, accelerating it further.

    • Glide@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 days ago

      I was just going to leave it at “funny, I’d say the same thing about billionaires,” but this is more through.

    • degen@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      Fighting so hard not to make an edit about raping sisters, but that might be too degenerate for me

  • PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    Sam Altman is an example of a terrible allocation of resources. Think of how much oxygen and dihydrogen monoxide he consumes? And for what? He just needlessly produces carbon dioxide in record amounts. The elementary particles that make up the sack of biotic matter that calls itself Samuel would be better suited for other applications. Agriculture comes to mind.

  • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    4 days ago

    Sam Altman is a terrible utilization of scarce resources.

    I want to use ram for things unrelated to AI you fucking prick.

  • inari@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    111
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Personal computers are a ridiculous idea, you should use our scalable mainframes instead --IBM in the 80s, probably

  • ExtraJudgement@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    4 days ago

    A lot of people want local inference, and somehow they assume that the problem is solved now because we have open-source models, we’re going to be able to run them on our computers, and so we’re not going to need all the stuff in the data center.

    We don’t need them even without local inference. There was already more than enough total global compute for the most valuable use cases of LLMs (research, development, admin). The datacenter build-up is almost entirely fueled by utterly unrealistic expectations of future capabilities. Before and now the case for local inference is a matter of access, not capacity.

    But from a global allocation perspective, actually it’s quite terrible to have everybody, like, have a bunch of the world’s limited supply of DRAM sitting in their own computer and being used five percent of the time.

    Utilitarianism like this is a disease. By the same logic, it’s inefficient that we allow other species of animals to exist and consume usable energy. Hell, why stop at other species? It’s inefficient to allow humans to exist - let’s kill all humans!

    Now, I know that’s not what he said, the point was to show that when someone uses utilitarianism as a serious argument, they are no longer worth listening to.

    Like you want maximum utilisation in the cloud if you’re trying to deal with this very supply-constrained environment,

    The supply is only constrained because you keep hoarding more than you need. Maybe it’s time for some communization? So communities where data centers are built get most if not all of the profits from it?

  • jaykrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    4 days ago

    That’s insanely ironic coming from him. Meanwhile the crazy amount of waste that these companies are producing buying all the GPUs to create artificial scarcity. They are terrified of people being able to run their own local LLMs because it completely destroyed their entire business model, they will never be profitable.

  • iocase@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 days ago

    Please don’t run AI for free on your own workstation 😭 it’s a very bad use of your computer 😥